jakee

Of course you do, she's a twister. WaPo said Coronavirus wasn't as serious as the flu for now on the 1st of Feb. Trump was still mking comparisons to flu death numbers over a month later. As the person now responsible for what the White House puts out, shouldn't she be taking back Trump's comments first? Her own comments also came at the end of Feb. In fact, she said Coronavirus would not come to the US when it was already in the US. She made much more solid statements than the newspapers she's 'clapping back' at and she made them later in the game. Trump also made worse flu comparisons at a far later stage than the outlets she is questioning, and that matters.

Doesn't even matter. So you're looking at whether it would be ok if the comment was followed through, well it wouldn't. No matter what the age when dating happened. If a middle age man met an underage girl, decided he's going to date her when she's old enough and then does - that's creepy as fuck and I know you know that. Further, if he'd had any contact with her in the intervening time it would be considered grooming. There is no scenario in which that would be thought of as normal and OK in our society. And before you spout off yes, I know there is no suggestion here that he did follow through with it, but you guys wanted to work the hypothetical details, and those are the details.

In the absence of having done anything uniquely good, that's pretty much as it should be. Take the UK, because it has such a clear example. By the time the virus took hold here there was already ample evidence on the table regarding how it spread and lockdown measures had already been implemented on scientific advice in sevral other countries. The UK government decided to go a copletely different way and use some weak social distancing methods and aim for herd immunity. After a week they realised that was bollocks and introduced a lockdown similar to most other european nations. Problem is, in that week the modelling shows the spread of the virus had time to explode from where it was, and it's a big reason why our numbers are as bad as they are now. So when we go back over what happened should we pat BoJo on the back and say 'well done for finally following the same advice everyone else had in the same way everyone else did' or should we be asking 'what the fuck were you thinking not following that advice in the first place'? TL:DR, remember the Chris Rock sketch about n****s and black people? You don't need to give people credit for stuff they were supposed to do. There is a minimum standard that the government is supposed to live up to in these situations, otherwise what are they even for? So if people can point to instances where Trump's words and actions have fallen short of that standard, and you can't point to any specific instances where he has exceeded it then why do you think you can tell anyone it's wrong to be focussing on the mistakes?

And yet this whole thread is nothing but an excuse for you to throw a massive insult at all the people who have decided for themselves that he has not done a very good job and deserves to take blame for it. So when you're actually saying "Give credit wherever you want, but if you don't I'm going to call you a horrible person who secretly delights in the deaths of thousands" it comes off soundng slightly less magnanimous than you want to appear right now, no? So there we have another problem - if you don't pay attention, why do you keep arguing with people who do and insisting that they're wrong and you're right? How do you know? If you don't care about whether things are being done well, why do you need to insult the people who do? And if you pay attention to the details, why do you assume the worst of those who do and then make judgements based on them? On what basis do you assume that their judgements are based on hate and not on what the information says when you don't know what the information says?

Cheating at golf, even. And I guess painting an ex-girlfriend gold is kiiinda like a dodgy payoff, but I admit that's stretching a little.

No, I want to know what you really think, not what your 'argue with libs at all costs' reflex drives you to say. So we should be giving him credit for positive ways in which he has faced the Coronavirus threat that wouldn't have happened if not for him specifically... but you don't know what any of them are?

Trump would have been a teenager when the first Bond films were released. How much of a stretch is it to imagine him walking out of the theatre and deciding to model himself on Auric Goldfinger?

How's that "+10" maths going for you again? Apparently she was 30 when they met so I don't see any suggestion he would have been grooming her when she was underage. Plus obviously Stewart is a hilarious, charismatic, intelligent and accomplished person and Trump is a wealthy slug.

Do you think he's made any policy mistakes or damaging statements that undermine the collective Covid response? Do you think he has done any positive things that have materially helped the US response that wouldn't have been done by any other President?

Your reply is a perfect example of why I said things have not changed here. That is genius.

What do you think could have been done better? What do you think he did well that wouldn't have been done by any other President?

I wouldn't call him a very fine person. He appeared to honestly regret his past but that's not enough on its own to flip the scales all the way back. And being born into a racist culture is one thing, taking it to the extreme of wanting to start a KKK chapter is another, no matter how young and impressionable he was at the time. But again though, he renounced his racism decades ago. So even if he did qualify for being a very fine person later on in life, I don't see how that connects to what you say here: "I gave an example where a democrat, elected official is the embodiment of what I understand to be Trumps meaning when he said it." Trump was talking about a crowd of people involved in a racist march now. Not people who used to do racist stuff years ago but have changed, but people who were doing it in the present. No matter what anyone thinks of Byrd now, the relevant question would be "was he a very fine person when he was in the KKK or filibustering against civil rights" and I think the answer from anyone would be no. I think the answer from Byrd himself was no.

Be honest, do you think he's only done one thing wrong?

Yeah, seriously. The owner of the National Enquirer is a friend of Trumps, and they have worked together to bury sex stories about him. The play is, the National Enquirer approaches women with dirt on Trump and offers them a bunch of cash for their story. The catch is that the Enquirer has no intention of ever publishing, and the cash is for exclusive rights meaning the women are contractually forbidden from talking to any other media outlet. They are effectively silenced. This was all gone over during the '16 election and is 100% true and verified. So again, yeah. Trump and the National Enquirer. Seriously.

Ah, ok then. So one guy posted and said he was a racist bastard but at least he got funding for WV by keeping a military base there. Again, when you said "excuses galore" were made and that he was said to be a very fine person I was really expecting something more. Do you really feel that you've given an honest account of what happened there?

Odd then that there wasn't a question mark used anywhere in your post, and the final paragraph was a statement of the negative conclusion you have already made and 'wholeheartedly believe'. See above about the problem of having a real conversation with someone when you can't trust that anything they say is in good faith.

Ah yes, found it. Funny thing I also found though - no one replied to the post. He was never mentioned again in the thread for good or bad. So once again, I'm wondering why anyone here has to defend this side of the conversation "He was summarily defended and all his good works were put forth, and excuses galore were made" when it is not a conversation you had with anyone on the public forums of this site.

You haven't mentioned Byrd here by name either. Who did you mention him to and what exactly did they say? I really don't get why you're asking anyone here to defend the opposing point of view in a conversation you seem to have had somewhere else with someone else.

Eh? I tried to berate you for something I said about me? That's supposed to make some kind of sense, is it? You could always give being genuine and honest a try. What have you got to lose?* *That's a Trump quote, so you'll have to think it's a good idea.

Where did you mention it and who defended him? The only mentions you've ever made here of Strom Thurman [sic] were this post and one 4 years ago. You don't ever seem to have mentioned the correct spelling of his name. I'm fairly certain that no-one here except maybe some of the fringe right would have any interest in defending him.

No, that wouldn't make grammatical or contextual sense either. You know, I had a bet with myself that you wouldn't even be able to admit using the wrong word (totally understandable mistake by the way, I'm sure a lot of people make it) and it looks like I won. Seems to be the perfect lead in to this, I started listening to a philosophy podcast yesterday and the first episode I heard was explaining a guy called Habermas and a theory called communicative rationality. Among other deeper things one of the main practical ideas involved was that you can't have a genuinely reasoned conversation when one party doesn't believe what they're saying. Further, podcast guy used example of how you can't have a normal conversation when you don't think the other party believes what they're saying. And the person that instantly comes to mind, and judging from numerous comments from numerous other forum users the person that would come to mind for at least half the regulars here, is you. A whole bunch of the time you're just posting inflammatory shit to get a rise, or convoluted defenses of Trump that are purely motivated by partisanship and not honest assessment of the facts - but even when you seem to start with a position you genuinely believe you go off the rails as soon as your first error in reason or fact is pointed out because you just can't let anything go. That's why discussions you're involved with always go down the toilet, because you always act in an untrustworthy way. Whether it starts off as trolling or whether you just get derailled by the irrational defense of some broken part of your post you just can't abandon (and this thread demonstrates both) it always ends up in the same place - total confusion as a result of your dishonest actions. Just a little something to think about.

Except you know it isn't. I've clearly explained the difference and you know it's true. The only reason for you to have made this post is that you just need to do something to throw a little bit of confusion around before you slink off. So why bother mentioning it? Do you want a present or something?

I'm curious - is there actually any other point to this post except to be cover for you to throw a blanket insult at everyone here you disagree with? And "preponderance" does not mean what you think it means, by the way.

What makes you think I'd use you as a measuring stick for my own behaviour? Anyway, again, I've asked you for apologies when you've made accusations that you knew were false at the time you made them. But when someone pops up out of nowhere on the same side of the argument as you and uses the same "I was only asking a question" weaselling as you it's perfectly reasonable to think it might be you. Looks like it wasn't so I was wrong, but that's all you're getting - and we both know it's more than you'd give if the roles were reversed.

Nah that's cool. But keep in mind that most other people aren't going to appreciate being told that mental health professionals would call their posting habits unhealthy. That's not the kind of behaviour that is going to encourage people to treat you in a way that you do appreciate. Give and take, yeah?